The Dvorak Simplified Keyboard: Forty Years of Frustration

by Robert Parkinson, Missisauga, Ontario

From Computers and Automation magazine,
November, 1972, pp. 18-25

The existing keyboard was designed experimentally by
Christopher Sholes, the inventor of the typewriter, to slow the
typist down, because the keys in his 1873 machine fell back
into place by gravity.

It is often frustrating to see all of the supposed emphasis
that the U.S. and Canadian economies are putting on
productivity. Over the past year, Business Week
magazine has had many articles and even one entire issue devoted
to the problems of productivity. I have written them several
letters, pointing out where the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard could
be of real benefit. None were published. Instead, I received a
letter stating that they had gotten my letters, but could not
publish them because ``we receive so many letters from readers,
etc.'' I found this hard to understand. The Dvorak
Simplified Keyboard (DSK) offers an increase in productivity of
30% to 50%, while the articles in Business Week were
making a big fuss over any businesses that were able to achieve
an increase of 10%!

The internal combustion engine is not the only sacred cow
that's giving us trouble these days. In 1962, when I was in
Seattle for the World's Fair, I called up Dr. August Dvorak, the
inventor of the DSK. This keyboard is a scientific rearrangement
of the letters on the typewriter keyboard which allows efficient
and speedy typing. When I called Dr. Dvorak, I
was somewhat surprised to find out that I was talking with a
bitter man:

``I'm tired of trying to do something worthwhile for the
human race,'' he said. ``They simply don't want to change!''

He told me that he'd been trying to introduce his keyboard for
30 years, and had been blocked at every turn. At the time, he
was already 68 years old, had retired from the University of
Washington in Seattle where he was a professor of education for
many years, and had evidently given up all hope of his invention
ever gaining acceptance.

This conversation with Dr. Dvorak sparked my interest. I
eventually converted my own typewriter to his keyboard, and
learned his system myself.

Background on keyboard design

Before going on with the history of Dr. Dvorak's struggle to
have his invention accepted, we should look at how the typewriter
keyboard most in use today came about. It turns out that this
keyboard was designed experimentally by Christopher Sholes, the
inventor of the typewriter, to slow the typist
down. The keys on the early machines hung down in sort
of a basket arrangement, and pivoted up to strike the platen
(roller) from underneath. To see what you had typed, you had to
lift up the roller so you could look at the paper. Since the
keys had no springs on them, they fell back into place by
gravity. This meant their action was very sluggish and if two
keys that were close together in one quadrant of this ``basket''
were struck rapidly, one after another, they would jam. To
overcome this problem, Sholes moved the keys around
experimentally until the machine seemed to operate with a minimum
of jamming. What he actually did was to make many commonly-used
letter sequences awkward and slow to execute. Thus, by
``anti-engineering'' his typewriter from a human factors point of
view, he was able to slow it down so it would function to his
satisfaction. Now, when we have typewriters that are
mechanically quite responsive, we are still bound by the old
keyboard found on those first (1873) machines. What an irony.

Defects

Upon analysis, Dr. Dvorak found that the ``standard'' keyboard
had several defects. These can be summarized as follows:

Hand overload: This occurs when more than one
character has to be typed by the fingers of the same hand. The
longer the string of characters that one or the other has to
type without a brief rest period (provided by a letter being
struck by the other hand), the slower and more uncertain the
typing becomes. The fastest and easiest strokes occur for
characters on the home (or finger rest) row and on opposite
hands. During periods of hand overload, typing speed is drastically
reduced, and errors are more likely to occur. The hand
overload problem is highlighted by the fact that over 3,000
entire words are type by the left hand alone on the
standard keyboard, with another 300 being typed only by the
right hand.

Unbalanced finger loads: The standard keyboard
overworks certain fingers and underworks others, all out of
proportion to their capabilities (taking into account
strength and dexterity of each finger).

Excess finger movement: Because of the
way the characters are spread out over the keyboard, fingers
must reach from and jump over the home row far too often.
This results in much wasted motion and fatigue. Indeed, on
the standard keyboard, the ``home row'' is not really a home
row at all since only 32% of all typing is done there. The
real home row is the third row from the bottom which
accounts for over 50% of the work. This is why a typist's
hands may unconsciously hover over the third row instead
of the home row (containing the letters ``asdfghjkl'') between
strokes.

Awkward strokes: Obviously, some movement
off of the home row would be required whatever the keyboard
arrangement. However, on the standard keyboard, many
high-frequency letter combinations are unnecessarily complex
and difficult to execute (just try typing ``December'' or
``minimum pumpkin'' without looking). These awkward
stroking patterns account for many errors, and also tend to
lower overall typing speed.

Research

After several years of intensive research, during which
hundreds of keyboard arrangements were studied and rejected,
Dr. Dvorak received a patent for his Dvorak Simplified Keyboard
in 1932. The DSK solves the basic problems inherent in the
standard keyboard.

Better hand alternation: The hand
overload problem is solved by maximizing alternate hand
stroking. This is particularly important in maintaining rhythm.
As much as possible, successive strokes should fall on alternate
hands. This allows what is called ``play for position.'' That
is, while a finger on one hand is in the process of stroking a
key, another finger on the opposite hand can be getting into
position to stroke the next key, and so on. The longer such
alternation keeps up, the more even the typing rhythm.
Dr. Dvorak solved this problem by putting the vowels (which
comprise 40% of all typing) on the left hand side of the
keyboard, and the major consonants that go along with those
vowels on the right hand side. This guarantees good hand
alternation since most syllables are made up of alternating
vowel/consonant letter sequences.

The figure above shows a short selection from a story called
Fraser Street. This text is made up almost entirely
of one-hand words on the standard keyboard. Made into a typing
test, Fraser Street is extremely difficult for a
normal typist. Only exceptionally good typists (in the
80-word-per-minute-and-up range) can even be expected to finish
the test at all in the standard time.

For our purposes, Fraser Street becomes in
illustration of how the DSK guarantees good hand
alternation by putting all of the vowels on the left hand
side. In the figure above, all of the left hand strokes are
shown by white letters on a black background, while the right
hand strokes are printed in the normal ``black letter on white
background'' manner. It can be seen how the DSK automatically
breaks words up into left-right vowel-consonant sequences,
thereby insuring superior rhythm.

Better finger loads: The ``dactylographs''
shown here illustrate, by the lengths of the fingers, the
relative work done by each finger on the Dvorak and on the
standard keyboards. The bold numbers 1, 2, ..., 8 are placed on
the fingers to indicate the relative abilities (combination of
strength and dexterity) of each. Thus, the right index finger
(number 1) is the ablest, while the left little finger is the
weakest. Note how the DSK arrangement precisely divides the
finger loads according to relative finger capabilities. On the
standard keyboard, the finger loads are nowhere near being
properly distributed.

More work (70%) done on home row: To
minimize excess finger movement, the most
frequent letters and letter sequences were placed on the home row
of the Dvorak arrangement where 70% of the typing is then
concentrated. One can compare where the same 70% is done on both
keyboards by looking at this figure.

The effect of placing the most frequently used letters and letter
sequences on the home row is illustrated in the figure below. In
this example, the ``Gettysburg Address'' was typed with all
off-home-row strokes shown by white letters on a black
background, while the on-home-row letters are printed with
black letters on a white background. The preponderance of
off-home-row strokes on the standard keyboard is dramatically
evident in the left hand diagram of the figure below, while on
the DSK there is almost the exact opposite situation with 70% of
the work being done on the home row.

Awkward strokes minimized: The rest of the
characters, comprising the typing that has to be done off the
home row, are placed on the DSK in positions on the remaining
rows according to how hard it is to strike the keys in those
rows. This is done such that the total number of awkward strokes
is minimized (the ``awkwardness'' of various types of strokes was
determined using high-speed time-and-motion movies). The effect
of this can be seen in the diagrams below. Since awkward strokes
are sometimes slower by a factor of three to
one, and since the DSK reduces the number of
these strokes by a factor of ten to one,
one can see how it is possible to achieve a faster typing rate on
this keyboard (and why Dr. Dvorak's students hold 12 out of 15
unbeaten world typing records).

Results

With all these design improvements, it thus becomes easy to
believe (a belief that has been proven experimentally) that the
DSK is:

Easier to learn (takes less time, easier
to remember the key locations, etc.)

Easier to operate (it is less fatiguing since
the stroking is simpler)

More accurate (you make 50% fewer
mistakes)

Faster (demonstrated nicely by all the
typing records that Dvorak's students made. In actual use,
the DSK improves productivity by some 35% to 100%)

If it's so good, why is nobody using it?

At this point, a quote from Dr. Dvorak himself might prove
enlightening:

``The reason the DSK, patented in 1932, is not generally used
today is the same reason that it took 35 to 70 years for the
railroads, steamships, radio, telephone, telegraph,
airplanes, and yes, even the automobile to gain general
acceptance. Each required implementation: investment
of time, money, and effort. Each was opposed by those who
had investments in the status quo, e.g., the canal
and barge owners, the Pony Express, the stagecoach operators,
etc. The general public shies away from ``new-fangled''
things and ideas, especially when they are given a strong
negative sell by dealers in what was good for their
grandfathers. Incidentally, standard keyboard typists,
remembering their laborious and frustrating travail in
learning to type, worry about ``unlearning'' the old
keyboards and ``won't go through that again.'' I'll
venture that if I could give you a Rolls-Royce car
with a seven forward, two reverse gear shift, you'd learn to
use it, with no concern about unlearning your present car's
shift. In Africa,'' the Doctor says, ``I learned to drive on
the left side of the road and streets with a fouled-up gear
shift with little strain.''

Vested interests

Let's look at some of the problems that Dr. Dvorak encountered
when he brought out his new keyboard. First, in 1932, the year
his keyboard was patented, the country was in the depths of the
Great Depression. The typewriter companies were almost broke;
so, naturally, they didn't take too kindly to an inventor coming
to them and saying, ``If you put my keyboard on your typewriters,
you will be able to do twice as much work with the same
machine.'' The manufacturers took this to mean, ``Oh, you mean
we will sell half as many typewriters? Well, thank you
very much. Don't call us, we'll call you.''

This feeling was seemingly passed over to the typewriter
dealers. If you went into a shop then (and in many cases even
today) and asked for a typewriter with the DSK, they would almost
always try to talk you out of it. The reasons were always
similar:

You would not be able to use any other machine.

Nobody else uses the DSK, why should you?

The standard keyboard is good enough. Typing speed is not
really that important in comparison to the other skills
necessary to office production. And, besides that, the
world's typing record is almost 150 w.p.m. on the standard.
Isn't that good enough?

The Simplified Keyboard is not really any better,
regardless of what anybody tells you.

Certainly it is easy to understand that the typewriter
companies were concerned with what they would do with their
current stock of machines if a change were made to the new
keyboard. They probably just felt they were protecting their
investment.

In a letter from a typewriter head office to one of their
branches, they pointed out that ``The Dvorak keyboard is not new
... has not been commercially accepted by the public ... for the
reason that the present so-called standard keyboard has
considerable merit and that typists for years have been taught
the touch system on that keyboard. To introduce a keyboard with
the alphabet keys rearranged in as radical a manner as the Dvorak
keyboard would cause considerable confusion. ... If a school
trained its typists on the Dvorak keyboard, they would have
difficulty in locating a position where the machines were in use
equipped with that keyboard. ... There is no definite
evidence that the Dvorak keyboard will increase the speed of
a typist regardless of statements to the contrary. Our most
expert typists are able to write over 150 five-stroke words in a
single minute, which means that they are able to hit over 750
keys in 60 seconds. A keyboard that is capable of being operated
at that high rate of speed cannot be so badly arranged after
all.''

Before continuing, some of the above arguments ought to be
answered:

One reason that the Dvorak keyboard was never accepted was
because the manufacturers never advertised that it
was available, never gave any demonstrations of its
advantages, etc. Obviously, if the public did not know the
DSK existed, they would not demand it.

The standard keyboard definitely does not have
``considerable merit.'' Indeed, it can be shown by analysis
that the arrangement of the standard keyboard is
worse than if the keys had been pulled out of a hat,
and distributed at random!

As to confusion, mass conversion is not recommended.
However, a DSK typing element for the IBM Selectric (TM)
typewriter would allow instant interchangeability of
keyboards and would minimize any problems an office might
have in switching back and forth between the two keyboard
arrangements.

If manufacturers and schools were to cooperate with
business, there would be no real difficulty in placing
students. A businessman would doubtless be happy to lease a
DSK typewriter, if he could then hire a 100-w.p.m. typist to
operate it.

There is very much evidence that the DSK is vastly superior
to the standard keyboard. This evidence is just not well
known, having been made unavailable or suppressed for
various reasons.

Another company commented openly in their advertising: ``No
one has ever studied typewriting without worrying about the madly
inconvenient arrangement of the keys ... (produced) to avoid
jamming keys and similar problems. ... From very early in
typewriter history, the idea of changing Sholes' nonsensical
keyboard has been hopeless. Typist opinion was against change,
and all of the companies that tried to prove that a more sensible
key order was desirable, have long since departed! Typewriter
buyers of the country know how to typewrite by `touch' and don't
want to learn a different system. And before you invest
time or money in a keyboard-reform scheme, consider the facts.
If people would buy it, [name of company] would be selling it!''

It is interesting that here, the company has actually
recognized that the standard keyboard arrangement is bad, but
then proceeds to tell us why we should still not try to change
it!

One could agree that typist opinion would likely be against
the DSK. But, most people don't type. Many of them
would like to. Why should they be forced to learn an old (1873)
and awkward keyboard, when a more modern and scientifically
designed one is available? That's as if the world's typists all
belonged to a huge union that says: ``To join our most-esteemed
group, you must learn to practice our trade exactly the way we
learned to do it. No matter that you think you have discovered a
better (faster, easier-to-learn) way. We are against
your way.'' One can hardly argue that that makes any
sense.

International typing competition: proving grounds for the DSK

From 1906 to 1932, 26 years, typewriter manufacturers used
annual World Professional and Amateur Typewriting Contests to
prove the merits of their machines and for advertising. For the
professional contests, manufacturers maintained ``speed stables''
of outstanding typists whose duties were to practice speed typing
(while under full pay from their sponsoring company) and
periodically demonstrate the superiority of their employers'
machines. Some professional typists practiced up to 25 years to
improve their speed and accuracy, which were widely advertised as
``World Records.''

Outstanding student typists from high schools and colleges,
usually winners in state typewriting contests, competed in the
``World Novice and Amateur Contests.'' A student with one school
year of typing instruction who could type at 60 net words per
minute (n.w.p.m.) for 15 minutes frequently was the ``world
novice champion.'' A student with two years' instruction with 70
n.w.p.m. frequently became the ``world amateur champion.''

Eventually, these contests were combined and included in the
International Commercial Schools Contest (I.C.S.C.) to be held
each year. The I.C.S.C. also include categories for shorthand,
machine calculation, and dictating machine transcription, in
addition to the typing events. The extent to which the equipment
manufacturers and publishers of shorthand materials subsidized
I.C.S.C. was not widely publicized.

Beginning in 1933, Dr. Dvorak started entering his DSK-trained
typists in the I.C.S.C. His students began ``sweeping the
field.'' Ten times in 1934-41 DSK typists not only placed first
in their class event, but also placed first in events for
contestants with much more training. In the 1935 contests, nine
DSK typists won twenty awards. The contest officials became more
and more upset. In 1937, after Dvorak spent $1,600 bringing nine
contestants to Chicago, the I.S.C.S. Committee informed him that
DSK typists were to be disbarred from competition because
they were ``unfair competition.''

However, Dr. Dvorak was not one to be bullied. He hinted that
the newspapers might find the disbarment of his students most
interesting, especially since the Contests were supposed to be
held to advance the skill of typing, not hold it back.
The Committee reconsidered, and Dr. Dvorak's students were
allowed to remain in competition.

After these events, however, Dvorak and his students were not
received in a friendly sportsmanlike manner in the interest of
commercial education. Standard keyboard typists objected to
being placed near DSK typists because the noise of their high
rates was disconcerting.

One year, Dvorak's machines were even sabotaged before the
contests began. Someone reset the margin stops on all of their
machines by just enough to cause line length and paragraphing
errors. Many typists were disqualified because of this. In the
following years, Dr. Dvorak had to hire security guards to watch
his typewriters prior to the start of the competition.

Another interesting thing was the way they reported the
winners. The score would be given, along with the brand name of
the typewriter they used (e.g., IBM Electromatic, etc.).
However, when Dvorak's students began winning with quite superior
scores, there was no mention that they had used the DSK, only
that they had used a machine produced by such-and-such
manufacturer (after all, the real purpose of the contests was to
prove the superiority of each manufacturer's machines, not the
keyboard used on those machines).

During World War II, the I.C.S.C. were cancelled. In 1946,
when they started up again, Dr. Dvorak had no students ready to
compete because he had been serving in the armed forces. With no
DSK typists in the contests, the performances on the standard
keyboard were so dismal (at least one contestant won a third
place with a zero net score) that they did not bother to announce
the winning scores of each winner at the awards ceremony, as had
been the case in previous years. After that, they decided to
cancel the competition altogether because they ``proved nothing''
(except perhaps the superiority of the DSK?).

What about running some experimental classes?

Many people have suggested proving the worth of the DSK by
running experimental classes. The question is: What will be done
if the experiments show that the DSK is indeed all it is claimed
to be? The plain facts are that the DSK has been proven
experimentally, but those in power in each case chose to
disregard the results of the experiments and everyone just went
on using the standard keyboard arrangement.

Some examples would be helpful here:

Tacoma Schools Experiment. During the
Depression of the 1930s, an experimental program in personal
typing was instituted by the school district in Tacoma,
Washington. Great care was taken to choose students who wanted
to use the typewriter for personal use, rather than in a business
environment. Parents understood that they would have to purchase
DSK typewriters for their children to use after finishing these
experimental classes.

Two thousand seven hundred students were put through the
various courses in DSK typing. These classes showed that senior
high school kids could learn the DSK in one-third the time it
took to learn the standard keyboard. The program was an
outstanding success, and was reported in various educational
publications.

But, then came a school board election. And typing in the
schools became a political issue: whether or not they should
allow the Simplified Keyboard classes to continue, etc. The man
who was against the new keyboard won the election. So, what did
he do? He ran a survey. He asked businesses in the area how
many DSK machines they had in their offices. Answer:
None. Then, he asked how many standard keyboard
typewriters the had. Answer: Why, all of them, of
course. On these grounds, he closed down the personal
typing classes (regardless of the fact that these students were
not planning to go into office typing, but wanted the typewriter
for their own personal use). It's amazing what one man can do to
help shoot down a good idea.

U.S. Navy Department Report: One of the most
interesting experiments was conducted by a group of management
engineers in the U.S. Navy Department in 1944. In this test,
they retrained a group of standard keyboard typists on the DSK in
a period of about two and a half months. The retrainees'
progress was also compared with that of a group of standard
keyboard typists who were given some additional training on the
regular keyboard. The results, together with the data supporting
them, were most conclusive. The DSK retrainees increased their
productivity by an average of 74%! Not only that, the total cost
of retraining was completely amortized in only ten days after the
tests were finished.

The improvement in the comparison group was much less
dramatic, amounting to only about 26% increase, and the
comparison group took twice as long to acquire their slight
increased performance.

On the basis of this test, the Navy Department issued a
request for bids for 2,000 DSK-equipped typewriters. They
figured that the amount of money that would be saved during the
war effort would be tremendous. But the request was turned down
by the Procurement Division of the U.S. Treasury Department
(which was responsible for all government purchases of
typewriters at the time). No satisfactory reason was given (at
least from the viewpoint of the Dvorak proponents). The request
was simply denied!

Later on, Dr. Dvorak heard over the ``grapevine'' that the
reasoning went something like this:

There are over 800,000 typewriters in the government.

It will cost $25 each to convert them to the DSK. (They
were not manufacturing any typewriters at the time; all the
typewriter companies were making war goods instead.)

It will therefore cost $20,000,000 to convert all of the
typewriters in the government.

But, what if the DSK does not work out? Then, all of those
machines will have to be converted back again. And, that's
another $20,000,000!

So, that's a total of $40,000,000, just because some
people ran a study in the Navy Department. Are you sure we
should approve that order for 2,000 DSK machines? What will
people think if it doesn't work out?

Although it would probably be very hard to prove whether or
not this rumor was in fact true, one can nevertheless ask: ``If
this is not the case, then why was the order turned down
by the Treasury Department Procurement Division?'' Surely they
must had some reason for the rejection. If it was not political,
then what was it?

The report is in two parts:

A Practical Experiment in Simplified Keyboard Retraining: A
report on the retraining of fourteen standard keyboard typists
on the simplified keyboard, July, 1944, and

A comparison of typist improvement from training on the
standard keyboard and retraining on the simplified keyboard:
A supplement to the above, 18 October, 1944. Prepared by
Training Section, Department Services, Division of Shore
Establishments and Civilian Personnel, Navy Department,
Washington, D.C.

Another interesting thing about this report was that after it
was completed, it was given a security classification by the
Navy, which again meant that an ordinary citizen could not
gain access to it. What a report on typewriters could have had
to do with ``endangering the national defense'' was never quite
explained. This classification was lifted later on; but,
nevertheless, it still happened.

``Unbiased test'' by the General Services
Administration: What really almost killed the DSK was a
test conducted by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)
in 1956, under the direction of Dr. Earl P. Strong. If you ask
anyone in the U.S. Government about the DSK, they will invariably
say that the GSA test ``proved'' that the Simplified Keyboard
wasn't any good. The conclusions of this study state, in part:
``... the Standard Keyboard results are better ... recommendation
for the adoption of the Simplified Keyboard for use by the
Federal Government cannot be justified based upon the findings of
this experiment.''

However, some old correspondence that has recently come to light
seems to indicate that Dr. Strong might not have been the
``impartial researcher'' he claimed. In a letter dated September
13, 1949, Dr. Strong states: ``... I have developed a great deal
of material on how to get this increased production on the part
of typists on the standard keyboard. Consequently, I am not
in favor of purchasing new (i.e., Dvorak) keyboards and
retraining typists on the new keyboard, and I am out to exploit
it to its very utmost in opposition to the change to new
keyboards.'' This seems to indicate that the U.S. Government
ought to conduct some new, more objective tests, and that the
data and results of these tests ought to be made freely available
to the public for open discussion.

If new tests are to be run, they ought to be run on a strictly
scientific basis, and the testing should be carried out over a
period of at least a year in order to allow proper evaluation.
At least four groups of students should be provided for:

A class of students who do not know how to type, and who
will start out learning the DSK.

A control class of students who will start out at the same
time as class #1 above, using the same methods, etc., but who
will type on the standard keyboard.

A class of typists who already use the standard keyboard,
and who agree to be retrained on the Dvorak arrangement
(nobody should be forced to learn the DSK against their
will).

A control class of standard keyboard typists who will be
given additional training on the regular keyboard, and whose
progress will be compared against that of typists in class #3
above.

Most importantly, provisions should be set up to insure that
all of the experimental data (including test papers, progress
records, etc.) are saved and made available to the public (or to
qualified researchers). It seems this was not done with the GSA
tests, much of the class material evidently having been either
lost or destroyed at the end of the trial.

The importance of typist efficiency can be understood when you
stop and think that there are, at present, several million people
who earn their living wholly, or in part, with typing. What
would be the value of a 50% increase in stenographic production
(which the DSK could provide) to business and government? For
two million workers earning $5,000 a year, it would be
$5 billion annually. And the increased cost to
typewriter manufacturers of assembling type for the DSK
arrangement? Relatively, very small.

In case you want to write the GSA itself, you can ask for
A comparative experiment in simplified keyboard retraining
and standard keyboard training, sponsored by General
Services Administration, Washington, D.C., 1956.

American National Standards Institute

The evidence all seems to indicate that the Simplified
Keyboard is really better. Many people may ask: ``Surely we
are more progressive today. Don't you think the DSK will
catch on now?

Unfortunately, that is not necessarily the case. It seems
that there are still many forces around that have an interest in
the status quo, in preserving the sacred cows.

Take the American National Standards Institute, for example
(abbreviated ANSI). This organization is responsible for
determining various standards needed in business and industry
today in the U.S., and includes a committee that recommends
keyboard standards. In a recently published article in
Datamation, a well-known computer journal, the ANSI
Keyboard Committee proposed a keyboard standard based exclusively
on the old layout that is on most of our typewriters today.

Let me quote one of the reasons given for this proposed
standard:

Research consistently revealed that the overriding
criterion for continued use (of the Standard Keyboard
arrangement) was the millions of people already familiar
(and those trained annually in schools) with this arrangement.

No thought is given to those people who don't now type, but
might like to learn if only it weren't so hard and time-consuming
to do so. It looks like preservers of the status quo are at it
again! And who are the members of the Keyboard Committee? As
you might guess, there are many representatives of manufacturers
of keyboard devices, most of whom, it might be said, have
heavy investments in the status quo. The membership list seems
to indicate that there might be a slight bias for this committee
to choose the normal keyboard layout over any other that might
come up. The percentage of ``users'' on the committee does not
constitute a majority of the voters. Thus, the manufacturers can
always have their way by voting together. (I have heard there
are other ANSI committees with a similar balance of power in the
hands of the manufacturers and suppliers.)

The ANSI Keyboard Committee certainly can't feign ignorance of
the DSK. One of their members has for some years been trying to
get them simply to include a mention of the DSK arrangement in
their standards: to define a ``family of standards,'' so to
speak. Then let people choose which member of the family best
suits their needs.

As a matter of fact, the DSK has been before the standards
organization for many years.

In the October, 1943, issue of Industrial
Standardization, published by the American Standards
Association (predecessor of ANSI), there was a discussion of the
Simplified Keyboard. One member of the current committee has
frustratedly written:

There are good reasons for asking for delay in the case of
the X4.7 typewriter keyboard standard, in that the proposal
was arrived at without laboratory research and without
consulation with qualified research engineers, psychologists,
or specialists in education and training.

I, for one, hope this is not the way our standards
organizations are being run. Were it true, I would question
whether we could really trust a vested-interest-laden committee
to make very important decisions for everyone else in the
country. Such decisions should not be based largely on
tradition.

The machine conversion problem

One thing that is holding back wide-scale training efforts on
the DSK is a way of converting a typewriter easily back and forth
between the standard keyboard and the DSK. IBM is currently
evaluating the potential uses of the DSK on their Selectric
Typewriters (Selectric is a trademark of the IBM Corp.), which
utilize removable typing elements. Unfortunately, IBM wants to
charge $20,000 for the initial tooling of the first DSK element.
Few organizations, outside of the governmnent, have operations
large enough to justify an expenditure of this size.

The DSK would mean increased sales of typewriters

Perhaps the typewriter companies should follow the example of
Xerox Corp. Xerox designed their machines so that all you had to
do was to press a button to get a copy. This greatly simplified
the entire process, and the copiers caught on like mad. In a
similar way, you can make typing simpler. Then more people will
use the typewriter. Besides the benefits of increased
productivity in business and government, the DSK conversion
would mean increased sales of typewriters to the public. Because
typing could suddenly become easy to learn, many more
people would decide they wanted to learn to type, who
would never have considered doing so before. After all, most
people do recognize that typing is a valuable skill; they just
figure it's too hard, or they don't have the time. Undoubtedly,
many of the new machines sold would go to people who don't type
now (a market the manufacturers have been after for many years,
without much success). The end result would be beneficial to us
all.

Henry Ford is said to have remarked, ``Hire the best engineers
you can find to build a car that morons can drive.'' I think
it's safe to say, he did, and they do!

Imagine how many people would be driving today if it took
three full years (the time it takes to gain an
``acceptable'' skill, on the average, with a standard keyboard
typewriter) to learn how to operate a car.

Also, Dr. Frank Gilbreth (under whose direction Dr. Dvorak
began the research that led to developing the DSK), the father of
time and motion study, said:

It is cheaper and more productive
to design machines to fit men rather than try and force men to
fit machines.

The U.S. space program strives to obey this principle, as its
importance becomes very obvious under stressful conditions. Why
can't we give the millions of typists in the country the same
considerations?

We are attempting to face the problems created by the internal
combustion engine, and have recognized the need to convert to the
Metric System of weights and measures. Since more people use
the typewriter to make a living than any other single business
machine in the world today (as was pointed out by
Dr. H. Forkner, the inventor of Forkner Shorthand), isn't it only
fair to examine needed improvements in this area too? I think
the answer is yes!

A 2003 perspective on Parkinson's article

by John W. Shipman

More than thirty years have passed since the appearance of
the article above. A few points from this perspective:

Clearly the computer is now the most-used single business
machine in the world. Yet most of them still use Sholes'
miserable keyboard.

The big three current PC operating systems, Windows,
Macs, and Linux, all allow you to remap the keyboard in
software. Windows, in particular, has a Dvorak option built in.

Here are my personal performance benchmarks. I've been
typing anywhere from 4-12 hours a day most of my career as
a programmer and writer.

1962, age 12: Learned to touch-type on the Sholes
keyboard using a course marketed by SCM, comprising
a flip-book and some 45rpm records.

1980: Current typing speed on Sholes, about 40wpm.
Converted to Dvorak and haven't ever wanted to change back.
It took me about a month to get back to 40wpm.

1998: Changed from conventional keyboard to the
Kinesis Essential with a
DSK layout. Current typing
speed about 80wpm. It took me about a week to get back to 80wpm
with the Kinesis.

2003: Current typing speed about 100wpm.

Parkinson's article above was used without permission. In the
process of typing it in, I modernized the punctuation slightly,
but tried as much as possible to adhere to the original wording.
All emphasis in the original with underlining; my choices of when
to use italics and when boldface were somewhat arbitrary.
All artwork is scanned from a photocopy of the original article.